Posted
by
Soulskill
on Monday May 02, 2011 @02:13PM
from the privacy-headlines-autoconvert-to-lawsuits-now dept.

RedEaredSlider writes "Two Android phone users are suing Google for $50 million in the wake of revelations that their phones might be tracking their locations. The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on April 27, is seeking class-action status. The plaintiffs, Julie Brown and Kayla Molaski, are residents of Oakland County. The two say in the suit that Google's privacy policy did not say that the phones broadcast their location information. Further, they say Google knew that most users would not understand that the privacy policy would allow for Google to track users' locations."
Apple was sued for their location tracking last week. According to Boy Genius Report, iOS tracking will be addressed in version 4.3.3, which is due out within a couple weeks.

There is a lot of money to be made in knowing where a user is. For Google it is a great advertising opportunity. By their own admission they are an advertising company. Put location gathering capabilities in a device made by such an advertiser and isn't it common sense that they may try to gather location information?

There is a lot of money to be made in knowing where a user is. For Google it is a great advertising opportunity. By their own admission they are an advertising company. Put location gathering capabilities in a device made by such an advertiser and isn't it common sense that they may try to gather location information?

which is why 50 million would be cheap if it's a class action settlement.

Yes, but that's irrelevant. Google is very clear about the ramifications of their location based/enhanced services. Either these people are idiots, or they need to sue whatever carrier modified the code to not sure Google's location aware warnings.

They're Idiots. I just got my first Android phone. You get warned when you go through setup. You get warned when you install and start EVERY APPLICATION that they'll be tracking you. There is no ambiguity if you have half a brain.

It's not so much about anonomized data being sent to advertisers. It's when you pick up an iphone/android you can look at the device and answer the question of "where was this user last night at 2am?" iphone had a location cache with no limit. I understand that android caches the last 50 locations. I've heard win phone only caches the current location. I don't think people would expect that the police could figure out where they were at a specific time three months ago simply based on data cached on their p

I'm saying this over and over these days, but: Knowing the location of the phone that views a certain ad right now is not evil. Knowing WHICH phone it is and/or WHO the user is, this is evil.

Google (and MS) just use an engineering approach here and use the Unique Device ID for tagging the location data (and AdMob even adds the Carrier User ID). What Apple does with iAd (use random IDs that get renewed on the iPhone every 12 hours) is much better, since it avoids this privacy problem to begin with. Using random IDs allows targeting phones and harvesting location information without identifying users/phones or tracking users over time.

Come on, fellow nerds: There ARE technical solutions to technical problems. Recognize that privacy is valuable and implement your stuff in a way that honours privacy by making abuse impossible (or at least possible only in a very abstract way) and you can have both: Advertisers targeting users and users not being tracked.

The amount of dumb fear and paranoia and especially the unwillingness to talk about technical details is just mindblowing. Advertisers are not after YOU. They may be after all people in a certain location or with a certain income or whatever, but they do not care for you personally and in fact they would LOVE to not have to care for such privacy problems by getting a clean implementation that gives them clean and anonymous data to work with. They work with "dirty" and too personal data only if they haven't got anything else.

ummm. It is the law at least for the carriers to collect that info. That is how 911 location tracking works.The thing I can not stomach is this law suit is because "They are too stupid to read and understand and didn't bother to ask questions!"I mean really do people have no shame?

carriers aren't the issue. google isn't a carrier, its not even a phone manufacturer. They wrote the OS, they're collecting data. The carrier probably doesn't need your consent to track your location, they don't monetize that information.

It is possible that Android is sending more information than I am aware of, but the only thing I have heard of is the network based location service.

The way this works is that the phone looks at what WiFi base stations you can see near you. It then sends a list of these to a server that has a database of the location of a bunch these base stations. The server looks up the locations of the stations you are near and estimates your location from that.

It is impossible for the server to tell you where you are without knowing where you are! The only other option would be for the server to continuously distribute gigabytes of WiFi database information to the phones, most of which would never be used. Querying for just the information needed is a better design.

And as others have already pointed out, this service is off by default, and gives a clearly understandable warning when turned on.

if the data was just to tell where I was, they wouldn't have to collect it. If they deleted the data on a regular basis I would think it less evil. But that's not what this is about. That's just a side effect. knowing where people go is enormously powerful.

Reading a EULA is like reading a paperback novel. Only it's written in Sanskrit and there's no character development, plot, or even anything interesting happening. Seriously, they write those things knowing damn well that NOBODY WILL EVER READ THEM. Heck, most people don't even possess the wherewithall or legal chops to read them. When you're standing in a queue in Best Buy you rarely have time for such things. And then when you get the thing home I'm sure the first thing you want to do is sit and swot over

It seems that you are the one who is too stupid to RTFA. This case isn't about users not reading the agreement nor is it about the carriers, nor about apps that might collect location info. As shown in this exerpt from the case:

Google tracks users' locations on its own, separate, apart and in addition to the information it collects in conjunction with other businesses that develop applications for Google's devices. This action is not about the applications' collection of information on users; rather, it is specifically in objection to Google's own collection of user location information.

It's about Google not being honest with its customers about how they track users. Indeed, the suit claims:

Google's Terms of Service do not disclose its comprehensive tracking of users nor its use of a unique device ID attached to each specific phone. Google only discloses that it is seeking permission to obtain location information from its Android Operating System cell phone users. Plaintiffs and other users did not provide any sort of informed consent to the extensive tracking at issue in this case.

It also takes issue with keeping this information unencrypted on the device itself, completely unbeknownst to the users. Location data is very sensitive and valuable information

The data is based on cell towers and is not exact. It is used to build up a location database of wifi spots that is used to for their wifi enhanced GPS. Even reading your post makes my head hurt.

"Google's Terms of Service do not disclose its comprehensive tracking of users nor its use of a unique device ID attached to each specific phone. Google only discloses that it is seeking permission to obtain location information from its Android Operating System cell phone users. Plaintiffs and other users did not p

Your comment contained many insults, but no explanation (that I see) as to why that is. I really don't see how it's a company's fault if someone doesn't have the time to read something or ask a question, provided the company was not lying to them or attempting to stop them from doing so in the first place.

There is a TED talk that clearly demonstrates this issue. The guy talks about how public announcements are ridiculously worded and obfuscated deliberately to dissuade public involvement in community development, and other issues where the public is supposed to be involved.

While I cannot find that video, please enjoy this one of a very related topic.

Please tell us which company you work for so we can start boycotting your products - if that's how you feel about your paying customers.

Well, if the company clearly writes it down somewhere and doesn't lie, then I see no problem. It certainly isn't their fault that the customer is either stupid or doesn't have time to read it (or some other reason). It's unfortunate, yes, but it isn't their fault.

If I were to write this reply in Arabic, would you read it?

Taking the time to learn a completely different language is quite different than taking the time to read something in your own language.

Spend 5 minutes arguing with almost any Google engineer, and you'll find that your question goes both ways. The sense of entitlement "because we're Google" can get appalling very quickly.

Same as the sense of entitlement that some have that 'because you have a website' grants them automatic privileges to index every page on that site, or have a scraper download every piece of information, or consume every CPU cycle available on that site generating on-demand content, or full right to try to send any malformed or malicious SQL statements that their little hearts desire. After all, it it is on the net, it belongs to them now.

Cell phones don't work if the towers don't know where you are. Location tracking is part of the spec.

Let's not forget that even though 911 services aren't guaranteed to know your cell location, most people agree it's pretty important tech to standardize. The number of people in North America cancelling their land lines defeats the entire purpose of 911's emergency response methods. Because you can't always blurt out your address, and accidents don't always happen near a house.Google cannot really justify any purpose other than "products/services". Whereas your cell provider can legitimately show evidence t

True. The problem, however, is that everyone jumped up and down to give all their personal data to the phone companies with subscription plans.

If my phone is prepaid and the phone company has no clue whatsoever who the phone belongs to, then the towers knowing the location of that phone means nothing.

I was always amazed at how many people were willing to get locked into plans.

Not so; it is easy to de-anonymize tracking information by looking at the heavily-traveled areas. Most likely, those are your workplace and your place of residence. I'll bet that's enough to uniquely identify the vast majority of people.

If my phone is prepaid and the phone company has no clue whatsoever who the phone belongs to, then the towers knowing the location of that phone means nothing.

...as long as you throw the phone away before some government employee retrieves all the data from it.

But, seriously, this really is one of those rare cases of "done nothing wrong...nothing to fear", as it's much more likely that location data from the carrier would be used before the location data from the phone. For example, if phone calls from kidnappers had come in at certain times from certain towers, then any phone ID that was using those towers at all those times would be something to help lead to a

this mandatory "give phone makers your location all the time" thing has got to be put down.

Unless a CARRIER modified some app or service on the phone, Google is VERY clear about their location aware services, and allow enabling or disabling them. Thus, (a) either these people are idiots, or (b) they need to sue the CARRIER who fucked with the software to hide the location awareness aspects. Either way, Google is not the issue here.

Correct. The first thing the phone does when you got to set it up is ask if you want to share your location data with Google. If someone shows that Google collects that data even when told not to, then there is a problem. Otherwise there isn't. The big hoopla over Apple was that they collected data even when location services were turned off.

My location is personal. Much like other personal things, consent is the difference between fun and abuse.

as mentioned above, google is not a carrier and need not know anything about my whereabouts, EVER. Actual carriers can track me without putting a program on my phone to do it - they just check to see what towers I've checked in on.

...doesn't it tell you upon first startup of _every_ Android phone that Google is going to be tracking your location ("sending anonymous location statistics"), and that you can turn it off if you want, but you won't be able to use apps and features that require it? It's not buried somewhere in the TOS -- it's an entire screen that you have to go through upon setting up an Android phone.

The accurate term that should be used in the TOS is "location data" and not just "location statistics". "Data" would contain (precise or approximate) location coordinates while "statistics" should contain only numbers pertaining to locations e.g. "user x was located within 100 meters of location y during month z".

The end user may read the TOS in detail but my bet is that he does not understand what he reads.

The accurate term that should be used in the TOS is "location data" and not just "location statistics". "Data" would contain (precise or approximate) location coordinates while "statistics" should contain only numbers pertaining to locations e.g. "user x was located within 100 meters of location y during month z".

Those "numbers pertaining to locations" sure sound like approximate coordinates to me.

Yeah, I'm kind of confused at how a group of tech smart people on slashdot claim you can't turn of location services on an iPhone (or perhaps don't know how to disable location services on an iPhone). Or maybe it's not true that you can't turn it off....hmmmm....

I would disagree with that. The storage part isn't really the bad part. If it stayed on your phone, then it would just be sloppy. The problem is that Apple was collecting data off of your phone even when specifically told not to.

No the phone was collecting data as it needs to. And at no point has anyone shown that any data from the db file on the iPhone has ever been transmitted to Apple. If location services are off nothing can access that data but the AGPS system as required. AGPS for 911 would be useless if it took 10 minutes to get your location.

The key here is there is a difference between AGPS and location services but they use some of the same data.

Yes, it does. It is very clear. You can also turn it off very easily. THIS suit should get thrown out. The Apple one has merit simply because of the storage part.

How so? Both Apple and Google store a cache on the phone. And the cache on Apple's phone isn't *your* location anyway, it's a subset of Apple's location database, and any incidental privacy concerns are going to be addressed very soon.

On Android, you have to MANUALLY TURN ON network-location-based services (they are disabled by default), and when you do so, you are given a warning that anonymized information will be collected by Google. The only way you could be unaware of this "tracking" is if you failed to read the warning before tapping "agree," and that's hardly Google's fault. This isn't some sprawling 100-page EULA with the warning buried in the middle, either. It's two flipping sentences.

many cell phone stores do the setup for the customer, and the customer never sees the "start up" screen and the box. they cell phone salesperson just click ok ok next until they can set up the email etc for them.

Following the initial set-up, network location is STILL OFF until you go into settings and enable it. Hence, "disabled by default." If the salesman then proceeded to go into settings and turn on network location without telling the customer, then sue the store, not Google.

> Following the initial set-up, network location is STILL OFF until you go into settings and enable it. Hence, "disabled by default." If the salesman then proceeded to go into settings and turn on network location without telling the customer, then sue the store, not Google.

Were the purchasers informed at the time of purchase, and at the time they entered into a contract with the provider, that if they did not consent to tracking the device would be incapable of performing the functions used to advertise

And as far as user agreements, in this corporately run society, you have only two choices: take it or leave it.

I've chosen to leave it and I'm quite happy, thank-you-very-much.

Entirely irrelevant to this discussion, since you can actually choose not to turn on location aware services on Android (and they are off by default). Additionally, the "user agreement" warning for this is two sentences that are easy to understand.

Huh? My GPS only turns on when I use Maps, Latitude or Nav (or do a Facebook check-in). And those are all by choice with me fully knowing the repercussions (since Google spells them out pretty clearly).

This "anonymized information" still contains the unique device ID of your phone that gets only reset when you do a factory reset of your phone. AdMob (by Google) submits this unique device ID as well as the carrier user ID along with your location data every time you view an ad.

8. All Android Operating System phones log, record and store
users' locations based on latitude and longitude alongside a
timestamp and unique device ID attached to each specific phone.
The phones store this information in a file located on the phone.
Google intentionally began recording this information with the
release of its Android operating system. Google uses cell-tower
triangulation and/or alternatively, Google may use global
positioning system (GPS) data to obtain a users location.

Well then they lose. Neither Google or Apple send an "unique ID attached to the specific phone" both use randomly generated IDs. Unfortunately Google only reset its ID when the phone is reset while the iPhones resets twice a day.

> you are given a warning that anonymized information will be collected by Google.

If it's anonymized, then they are not tracking my location. They are tracking the location of an anonymous device. I have only a limited problem with that (they're using my device to generate revenue, without explicitly cutting me in on the action).

> The only way you could be unaware of this "tracking" is if you failed to read the warning before tapping "agree," and that's hardly Google's fault.

Yeah just like the corporations made "easy money" by sucking 1500 billion from the Taypayer Treasury. Please pardon me if I feel no sympathy for inanimate objects like rocks, buildings, or corporations. They basically enslaved and sucked dollars from the wallets of ~300 million working class citizens.

The lawsuits asks the court to require Google to either give up tracking Android users or to clearly inform users of "its true intentions about tracking," including whether that information is released to third partis are used for marketing. It further seeks monetary damages "in excess of $50,000,000.00" as well as punitive damages on top of that amount.

The phone has to have the ability to notify the carrier of it's location, who can then give that to 911 as necessary. Sure that means that Android may have to do something in order to enable that, but one of those things is NOT to phone home to Google.

Not intended as a troll. I generally like my Android phone but most of the time it can't aquire a GPS signal. (Unless I know where I am, where I am going, and how to get there. It seems to work fine as long as I don't need it). It seems to be a common complaint among other Android owners I know.

Location Tracking may be a Good Thing. News is coming out that Osama was tracked down because he had an iPhone. Even after the news came out about the location tracking, he couldn't put down Angry Birds.

I suppose there's plenty of time for the winds to change - but it's amazing how different the tone of pretty much all the replies on this post is versus the ones on Apple's location tracking just a few days ago.

Oh, but I forgot - it's Google. They use Open software (somewhat) and state they're not evil.

STOP MONETIZING ME! I am not a data goldmine for you to rape at your convenience! Sell me the product that I want (NOT the product you think I need, or the Trojan Horse product that gets you access to my information) and then STEP OFF.

STOP MONETIZING ME! I am not a data goldmine for you to rape at your convenience! Sell me the product that I want (NOT the product you think I need, or the Trojan Horse product that gets you access to my information) and then STEP OFF.

So stop buying their mining devices then.

Yes, and of course giant mega-corporation is going to make a phone with features YOU -- 18425 -- want and not what the majority of people want.

Yes, and of course giant mega-corporation is going to make a phone with features YOU -- 18425 -- want and not what the majority of people want.
I don't think the majority of people WANT to be tracked. If they were given the option of device A that tracks and device B that doesn't, I would suspect they would mostly go for B, except for the devices that they were going to give to their kids. However, option B is not available, and so most people seem to prefer to have shiny new toys rather than take a stance

Smartphones are an amazing distributed instrument. Millions and millions of computers with constant net access, GPS and whatnot, being carried all over the world in the pockets of their users. The nerd in me sees perfectly well the amazing potential here.

I would be just too glad to be part of this instrument and to participate in data collection allowing others to offer good and useful services from the collected data. I have no problems with others monetizing this and offering me what they created, IF they

When I first turned on my Android phone, it told me that by default location services is turned off. It then asked if I wanted to turn it on, and if I did, would I also like to help Google out by contributing nearby towers and wifi networks to help improve the service. All optional, and all clearly laid out. And, you can't even argue that users feel forced, because you can still get the location-based features without allowing Google to collect the data, since the two options are separated. Additionally, it's also fine-grained and application/website specific. Even IF you enable Location Services for google websites, if a different website asks for it, you get another prompt. Similarly, each application besides the browser that wants that data will also require a prompt. (At least on my phone it does).

Now, if a manufacturer or carrier is changing the behavior from default-off to default-on, that's not Google's fault. In fact, Google might even prevent this. They have a number of manufacturer rules about user privacy and experience and that sort of thing. While they release all of their stuff open-source (eventually) so they cannot prevent a manufacturer from making such a phone, they audit phones and do not allow non-complaint handsets onto the Google Market, which has a pretty negative impact on the value of a non-compliant phone. Now, I don't know if Google prevents the data collection from being changed to on-by-default, so who knows...certainly some people have claimed to never have been asked, but I've used both an HTC Legend and a Samsung Galaxy S, and both of those defaulted to off, with a prompt during the initial setup. I suppose that maybe some carrier employees do the initial setup for you? But this question comes after you've entered your gmail account and password. So, besides being the store's fault, not Google's, why are you so concerned with privacy when you gave the minimum wage employee at the AT&T store your email address and password?

Google does make it pretty clear that they track users. They just don't allow you to opt out without it affecting the functionality of Google Maps and Navigation. That is a big difference between Apple and Google. A 50 million lawsuit over this is a bit frivolous, just a bit.

While I feel that there are a large number of people at Google who take ethics seriously there are also people willing to compromise. Corporate America only understands money, for the most part. Cases like this will begin drawing boundaries for Google, Apple and others. Kudos to the people inconveniencing themselves to execute these cases.

Not sure why you are modded troll. Seriously, any company that offers a free service has to have a financial incentive elsewhere in order to keep providing the service. Google is an advertising company, at the end of the day. Technology is their vehicle.

It doesn't work without sending the location data to google, and by "doesn't work" I really mean, "can't work" without sending data to a centralized system to look up the necessary data to compute your enhanced location. In some sense, your phone doesn't send Google precisely where you are, instead, it sends statistics from which Google derives a better guess as to where you are and sends it back to you.

Fun thing is, unlike Apple, they actually TELL YOU what they are doing when you turn it on, and ASK if yo

Think of it this way. If I do a Google query for a map location, Google can serve up that map to me and allow me to interact with their map app, but they don't have to associate that information with me or log my queries. So, you can have location awareness applications without location tracking.

I've and an Android phone and I've had location tracking turned off as you talk about. But, it's a pain in the butt using phone with the feature turned off (all the prompts you end up navigating any time you do a

I tried posting the equivalent argument in the iPhone version of this story and got flamed into oblivion as a fanboy. As your screen shot clearly shows (and as does the same feature for iPhone), it actually IS a feature that many of us want. The negatives, for many of us, are drowned in a sea of positives (cool features that require location services).

But hey, don't try saying something nice about location services in a slashdot thread about iPhones if you are thin skinned.